... they've done it a few times before, and it IS for a reason, like the earthquake. Supply and demand, no secrets there.

That's one of the reasons to increase prices, too - natural disaster; supply and demand. The same thing is happening with prices of hard drives due to flood in Thailand.

Quote

It's much better for Canon to say the world economy forces us to up the prices worldwide, than do a halfass attempt to squeeze more money out of customers by slight upgrades, then no one would by them either, and production costs, it just wouldn't make them any money....

It won't be "halfass" - you'll get new coating that will reduce light scatter and increase scratch resistance; or in the case of 35L you may get weather sealing, too.So, what price increase scenario is more likely to be accepted by the public?1. World economy forces us to up the prices worldwideor2. We are "improving" the current close-to-perfect lens with new coating and/or weather sealing and that's why the price of new lens is higher now.

p.s. You have to look at this from Canon's, as a business, point of view rather than from customer's point of view: how to increase profit with minimal expenses.

First off the 4 L IS isn|t THAT old, and scratch resistance is a big upgrade? I think not, buy a filter, which you needed for it to be fully weathersealed anyway, done.

Second, I mentioned the 35 as much more probable candidate to be upgraded because it lacks behind in every way, comparing, of course, to the 24 1,4 II. So for Canon to upgrade the 35 to match the 24, and yes, also with the weathersealing, less ca, better color contrast and corner performance and the new AF and it would be a solid upgrade, but that's very far from upgrading the 70-200 with new coating.

Canon spend quite a lot of time and money to find out what the customers want, we see that again and again, so looking at it from a customers perspective is also what they do.

Small adjustments , upgrades if you will, is done with camerabodies at entrylevel, and some of the cheapest lenses, but not to L-grade lenses. There isn't a single mkIII lens, which means the ones that are upgraded have been around for along time and needs a SOLID workover.

I know I'm an optimist, but I don't see much room here for a big price jump. The f2.8 II version with rebates has been available for around $2,000. Unless they really jack up prices on existing lenses, there just doesn't appear to be a lot of room to raise the price of the f4 version significantly. Then again, I would have never thought they'd have the audacity to paint a 70-300 f5.6 lens white, stick a red ring on it and list it for $1,600. (I know...I know...that an exaggeration...but is it that much of an exaggeration?)

I too wonder about this scratch resistant coating on front elements. It's still not going to convince me to take off the skylight filter. I'm more concerned about dropping it or banging it against a rock, than I am about anything that scratch resistant filters will protect against. Besides, I've seen and read several test reports that show it takes some pretty severe scratches to affect image quality. I wonder if this isn't a lens version of automobile undercoating.

Overall, this sound a bit like something just a notch or two above the upgrades to the recent version II of the 55-250 EF-S lens. A little more than the cosmetic changes to that lens, but not a true upgrade, just some minor tweaks.

I know this is all CR-1 so I'm taking it with a pretty huge grain of salt. But, I also know that every time I think I know what Canon will do, they do something totally different, so who knows?

Interesting... Unlike the 24-70mm and the 35L, the 70-200/4 IS seems like it doesn't really need an upgrade at all - it's pretty close to the 70-300 L and the 70-200/2.8 IS II in terms of IQ, has sealing, etc. Fluorine coatings on exposed elements would be nice and all, but hardly worth an upgrade...

It does seem to be a rather strange usage of design resources at this point!I'm doubting this. Almost every lens rumor not at least CR2 (and even some of those) proves to be false.Body rumors are more reliable.

Its very possible that they might update the lens coatings and tweak minor things. I am in doubt of anything major. The 18-55 was updated to a ver II, with only minor changes, which no one could detect except for the paint job.

It does make sense that canon would update the coatings on all their "L" lenses, having different coatings on different lens elements is a waste of factory space and money. Keeping two very high tech processes going is going to be expensive and may even slow production down.

You have to look at this from Canon's, as a business, point of view rather than from customer's point of view: how to increase profit with minimal expenses.

What better way to do that than to increase the price of a product and not change anything else about it? If they do their research properly, it's possible to do just that without impacting sales negatively enough to offset the increaed profit...

It depends a bit on which test one looks at if the 70-200/4 IS or the 70-200/2.8 IS II provides higher resolution, so they're pretty close I guess, it depends on which sample one gets.

I'm very satisfied with my 70-200/2.8 II, but for my landscape hikes when it would be nice with a lighter lens, for landscape shots I use it around f/8 anyway. So a 70-200/4 II with further resolution bump so it is guaranteed even sharper than the 70-200/2.8 II would be a nice alternative.

The way it goes looks like Canon engineers have a mad new FF DSLR with all blowe and whistles right and they put the current lens line on it and ooops, not workable: so they phone the lens department and let them know in advance...

The way it goes looks like Canon engineers have a mad new FF DSLR with all blowe and whistles right and they put the current lens line on it and ooops, not workable: so they phone the lens department and let them know in advance...

Sure, it wouldn't be the first company where two departments working on products that must work together have different roadmaps (timeframe and specs)

Cornershot

I have this lens and the 2.8 and I find that I carry the f/4 IS more often when I can get away with it because it's so much lighter and compact. I can carry a full range without killing myself. Although a metal body would be more durable, it also would make it a bit heavier. I'd definitely not upgrade.

There's about 60 different models of lens that need to be updated before this one (like all of them, except maybe the TS-E 24).

I have to be cynical and call shenanigans. Either it's:- Bogus.- Meant to be the 70-200 f/4L non-IS (getting weather-sealed maybe?).- An excuse to raise the price as some have said (and i'll be there to buy a second-hand mk1 from all the chumps who sell theirs for the "upgrade").- Maybe maybe maybe (although i very much doubt it) maybe they've figured out how to make it auto-focus with a 2x T/C on the 1DX but they need to release a new model to do it (hey, we can dream can't we?).- An EF-s version, to make it smaller and lighter (yeah right).

Enrico

I dunno much about how to produce a lens... But couldn't some Mk II changes be due to new production plants ? Streamlining production using the same elements/part as in other lenses and hence lowering the costs?

Most (all?) lens improvements are most likelt to be made to increase profit or decrease cost. Not bringing us better pictures (as long as your competitors doesn't run ahead of you which seems not to be the case this time...)

Is it possible at all for Canon to add the coating and not make it a Mk. II, so it would stay at the same price point, and eventually as stock moves, it would replace the older model without the coating since it's only a minor change? Or is that something that doesn't happen in the camera world?